Draft Response to FAA NPRM for Remote ID of UAS

So, I woke up about midnight, unable to sleep. Rather than toss and turn, I decided to write a draft response to the FAA NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule-Making) for Remote ID (and Tracking) of UAS Unmanned Aircraft Systems).

I had planned on reading the NPRM a few more times (I have read it three times now), creating a series of possible responses, and reading a variety of submitted responses before drafting my final response. I may still follow those objectives, but decided to throw out a ‘straw man’ response for later evaluation and consideration. (I rarely accept as final any document I write in the ‘wee hours’ after midnight).

In order to better evaluate my initial response, I decided to publish it here, as sometimes reading what I have already written and published helps me to identify areas for improvement or clarity, and to see more objectively what I have written. Thus I submit to you, Dear Reader, the initial draft of my response to the NPRM. I would greatly appreciate any comments, feedback, or improvement suggestions you would care to share.

Here goes…

Response to FAA Docket 2019-1100 (Remote ID NPRM)

Hello

I am writing in response to the FAA NPRM (Docket # 2109-1100) for Remote UAS ID. I am a veteran and long-time RC modeler and (more recently) UAS pilot. I would like to address some issues and concerns I had when reading the NPRM.

The UAS Remote ID (and Tracking) proposal appears to be based on two valid concerns; NAS safety and NAS security. I would like to address how (for each category) the proposed NPRM could potentially cause more safety and security issues than it solves. I would also like to concurrently suggest some methods which might suit the FAA’s goals and objectives in a better manner than the proposed NPRM does.

  1. National Security: while visibility of all UAS in the NAS could potentially increase overall awareness of the NAS (and thus potentially, result in increased security), the NPRM as it stands potentially serves to work against national security objectives, to wit:
    1. The proposed ID method would be effective only if widely adopted and enforced. In the event of widespread non-compliance, the national security goals would be subverted, with more unidentified aircraft in the NAS, and national security agency resources misused or diverted in tracking down non-compliant pilots, instead of focusing on credible and tangible threats to the NAS and national security.
    1. The rules in regards to amateur-built UAS would virtually force (or at best, likely result in) widespread non-compliance, and thus increase A) national security/NAS lack of safety and B) the number of unregistered and unidentified aircraft in our nation’s skies.
    1. Due to the nature and flying habits of amateur-built UAS pilots, their needs will not be served by FRIA ‘drone parks’, for the following reasons:
      1. These FRIA are very limited in number and often at some distance from the majority of potential users
      1. Amateur-built UAS (especially for FPV and racing applications) require a fairly large amount of space (which FRIA as existing do not provide)
      1. Forcing this segment of the UAS population into ‘drone parks’ (or drone concentration camps, as the more obstreperous term them) would actually result in less safety, with faster and more agile UAS forced to share space with slower traditional RC aircraft. The potential for conflict (both in the airspace and on the ground) makes this method a safety concern in itself.
      1. The number and amount of approved FRIA nationwide is insufficient to support the large numbers of amateur-built UAS pilots (for example in my home state of Colorado, with a high number of UAS pilots, there is only one FRIA).
      1. Allowing the FRIA to be operated only by currently-recognized CBOs (Community-Based Organizations) such as the AMA would result in unfair circumstances, as most of the existing FRIA are designed for (and primarily utilized by) legacy RC model aircraft. The goals and objectives of the two groups (RC modelers and UAS racers) are incompatible, and there is no indication the RC-based AMA sites would willingly A) welcome B) support or C) allow their airspace to be shared with UAS pilots.
  • NAS Safety: Addition of commercial UAS delivery services presents an exponentially greater safety threat than the existence of recreational and limited commercial UAS, as currently exists in the NAS.
    • Rather than place the burden of compliance with the existing UAS population, I would suggest the responsibility should be placed more squarely on that segment of the UAS population which wishes to merge with the existing aircraft (for their own profit); e.g., those multinational corporations seeking to do business in the NAS of the United States by providing UAS-based delivery services and other related services
    • Rather than basing the NPRM on future technologies (such as 5-G wireless, a pre-requisite for such plans) and undeveloped technologies such as ACAS (Aircraft Collision and Avoidance Systems) for UAS, I suggest that those who wish to enter the NAS safely for commercial profit should be required to demonstrate to the FAA technologies that can be implemented now, instead of at a future date, when notional new technologies become available

Additional areas of concern become obvious as I consider this issue further, and generally fall into two categories; legal issues and civil rights issues. I’ll address each separately.

Legal Issues:

  1. Forcing a Remote ID requirement on individual pilots presents a case of virtual mass surveillance, illegal per existing United States law. (50USC1801, Mass Collection of Data)
  2. Specifically ‘targeting’ a segment of the population for mass surveillance (whether forced or voluntary) presents a civil right concern, and places the FAA in the undesirable position of being seen as an enforcer of unfair, unjust, or ‘bad’ laws , instead of as a neutral enforcer of and advocate for laws, rules, and regulations that simultaneously promote airline safety and national security, while preserving the legal and civil rights of the population
  3.  

Civil Rights Issues:

  1. Segregation of the population by pastime (or business) is illegal as well as inadvisable from a common-sense standpoint.
  2. Allowing ‘corporate citizens’ to have priority over the needs and goals of actual individual citizens in unconscionable at best and most likely illegal. It is contradictory to the best traditions of the FAA.

Note the designation of certain groups for limited access to the NAS effectively outlaws members of those groups, creating outlaws from what were once basically honest citizens. The cost for enforcing such exclusionary laws would have a large impact on the A) national budget B) constraints under which the national security and law enforcement organizations already operate, and C) make distinction between ordinarily honest citizens disobeying exclusionary laws and ‘bad actors’ with no love or respect for the United States, its laws, or aviation in general difficult at best.

The effect of draconian laws targeting specific groups of individuals on national cohesiveness, the economy, and social issues too numerous to define can be seen by the US ‘war on drugs’, which has taken such a high toll and resulted in such a high national cost, both in health, money, and law enforcement resources. Any time in our national history where we have targeted a distinct group of citizens, the results have been bad and the associated costs high.

Suggested Alternatives

Airspace segregation

By segregating the NAS (or at least high-density population areas and projected delivery routes) much of the potential for airspace contention and collision would be avoided.

Dedicating such segregated airspace would require re-definition of airspace (a task well within the capabilities and purview of the FAA, and one easily accomplished).

By segregating a portion of the existing airspace (and an additional component), the altitudes between (for example) 300 and 500’ AGL could be reserved for UAS delivery routes. The airspace between 0 and 300’ AGL could be dedicated for recreational UAS, and for commercial and emergency UAS services which require access to such space. This would leave only vertical corridors to and from launch and delivery sites as potential areas of contention.

The vertical corridors for launch and landing of delivery UAS could be negotiated by a number of techniques, among them:

TFR (Temporary Flight Restriction) could be activated just prior to use of the intended vertical delivery corridor

Advisory signaling from delivery craft prior to ascent or descent from these corridors could be sent either electronically, visually, audibly, or a combination of techniques, as deemed appropriate for the intended corridor  

Real-time (or NRT) location of delivery UAS, through a mechanism similar to Flight Aware, could be available to all recreational pilots, or even consolidated into their flight control display (as advisories) or flight control system (as temporary or permanent ‘geo-fences’)

Limitation of Remote ID requirements

Limiting the Remote ID and Tracking of UAS to high population density areas and to potential delivery routes for commercial UAS would serve the FAA’s safety goals and still allow access to a large portion of the NAS for more limited commercial and ongoing recreational UAS flight operations.

Implement Broadcast ID Requirements Only

Using only the broadcast ID technique would A) ease and accelerate implementation, as it could be accomplished relatively easily, B)  have the added benefit of integrating existing UAS into the Remote ID ‘ecosystem’

Suggested Interim Measures

The immediacy ascribed to this NPRM is felt only by the multinational corporations who stand to make huge profits by quickly implementing UAS-based delivery services in our NAS. I would suggest it behooves the FAA, the wider UAS pilot population, and the nation in general to take adequate time to fully consider the issues and alternatives more fully, and implement them in stages, as the technology and techniques become available and are sufficiently tested for integration into the NAS.

Using the United States NAS as a ‘test bed’ for implementation of commercial profit-making schemes does not serve national security, aircraft safety, or good common sense. Thus, I suggest the following:

1.   Allow the proposed methods to be tested elsewhere, while the FAA evaluates the effect and advisability of such proposed money-making schemes on the NAS

2.   Institute a moratorium on further regulation-making, until a public meeting can be held        to discuss and evaluate the issue in more depth

3.   Include the UAS recreational pilots in the dialogue (both legacy RC pilots, FPV/Racing pilots, and recreational ‘camera drone’ pilots)

  • Avoid considering legacy groups such as the AMA to represent the general population (sales figures alone demonstrate how the UAS pilot population far exceeds that of RC modelers, and thus representation should be based more towards UAS pilots, than towards RC modelers, as is the current situation)

Summary:

I propose a solution based on cooperation, not contention between stakeholders. The NPRM (as it stands) reflects only the concerns and objectives of commercial and national security interests, not of the general UAS pilot population. It is understandable that the NPRM reflects as it does, having only received limited input, and primarily from the parties to whom the NPRM appears to cater to.

I suggest consideration of the legitimate concerns of the primary stakeholders (the actual UAS pilots) will result in a more balanced, effective solution to the challenge of A) providing a viable method for UAS ID, registration, and tracking and B) effecting a solution which meets the needs and concerns of the national security and law enforcement stakeholders, as well as those of commercial and recreational stakeholders.

As written, the proposed NPRM is biased towards commercial interests, and reflects a solution only acceptable to them. Consideration and implementation of improved solutions will result in wider acceptance of (and compliance with) the proposed rules, as well as increased NAS safety and national security.   

Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter, and please allow me to say thank you for your service to our nation and national airspace.

Regards,

Mark F. Mullen

oneyoga@live.com

Hey, North Korea- Leave Those Drones Alone

The DPRK (Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea), AKA North Korea, has an undeniably sub-standard air force. Since the South Korean Air Force acquired modern F-35 fighters from the US (just to mention one of the many types of modern planes they have), the ‘north’ is hopelessly out-classed in air capabilities.

But a weak economy and starving population won’t stop them. They recognize UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) are the military craze among cheap, wannabe regional powers, and think they are a relatively cheap way to catch up with (or at least not be hopelessly out-classed by) the South.

Previously, they were flying a series of antiquated drones across their southern borders. Some of these drones look like a Keystone Kops ‘kluge’ (a travesty of engineering design). Although many of the drone missions to the South crashed and got captured, some had to be effective, right?

That didn’t really seem to be the case…until recently.

With the rumored acquisition of the XXX-4 (an illegal copy of the communist Chinese CH-4 ‘Rainbow’, which is a copy of the US’ MQ-9 ‘Reaper’), the North may be back in the air force/air surveillance game. Although illegal to sell advanced technology to N. Korea (due to a worldwide arms embargo), it seems Kim Jung-Un’s folks may have somehow got their hands on a modern and capable Chinese drone.

An acknowledged ‘bad actor’ on the international stage, North Korea (e.g., the DPRK) is about the last entity which needs a high-tech MALE (Medium-Altitude, Long Endurance) UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) in their hands. The amount of damage a megalo-maniacal leader and a subservient, totalitarian country could get up to with these drones is almost unlimited.

Still, the XXX-4 is not officially part of the North’s acknowledged fleet. Their official fleet is limited and relatively low-tech. It consists of:

Un-Named (이름이없는 Eelem-Yong-nen)

Based on the US (Beechcraft) MQM-107B ‘Streaker’ drone from the 1970’s (retired in 2003), acquired from Syria. Its specifications are:

Length: 18’1″ (5.5 m)

Wingspan: 9’1″ (3 m)

Height: 4’10” (1.47 m)

Max Speed: 575 mph (925 km/h)

Ceiling: 40,000′ (12,192 m)

Max Takeoff Weight: 464 lbs (664 kg)

Engine: Microturbo TRI 60 Turbojet

Washington Times

(Un-named) mounted on (ancient) Russian Zil-130 light truck

Xian ASN-104 (AKA Panghyon -2 ‘Fender’) Developed by PRC-based Northwestern Polytechnical University (and called the D-4), was a piston engine reconnaissance UAV acquired in the mid-1980’s.

Wingspan: 4.3 m (14.1 ft)

Length: 3.3 m (10’9″)

Height: 0.9 m (2’11’)

Engine: Two-stroke, nose-mounted (puller), with 2-bladed, fixed-pitch propeller

Max Speed: 205 kph (127.3 mph/11.2 kt)

Cruise Speed: 150 kph (93.2 mph/81 kt)

Max Takeoff Weight: 140 kg (308 lb)

Payload: UNK

Ceiling: 2 km (6,561 ft)

Endurance: 2 hr

Range:60 km (37.3 mi)

DR-3 Rey (Tu-143 Reys) was acquired from Syria in 1993. The Russian-made drone was a low altitude, limited-range (60 km/ xmpk) system, made by Tupolev.

Maiden Flight: 1970

Wingspan: 2.24 m (7’4″)

Length: 8.06 m (26’5″)

Height: 1.54 m (5’1″)

Weight: 1,230 kg (2710 lb)

Engine: Tupolev TR3-117 Turbojet (5.8 Kn (590 kgf/267 lbf)

Max Speed: 950 km/h (590 mph/515 kn)

Ceiling: 5,000 m (16,400 ft)

Range: 200 km (125 mi)

Pchela -1T (‘Bee’) This Russian-made drone was acquired in 1997-1998.

Wingspan: 3.25 m (10.7 ft)

Length: 2.78 m (9.1 ft)

Ceiling: 2,500 m (8202 ft)

Speed: 180 kph (x mph/97 kt)

Endurance: 3.5 hr

Max Takeoff Weight: 138 kg (304 lb)

Range: 60 kn (x mi/32.4 nmi)

Durumi Domestically-developed UAV, considered similar to the Saab/Aerosonde MK3

SKY-09P

The king of the DPRK official fleet (of two types) is the Sky-09P (Samcheok-si), made in China by TranComm Technologies (who deny any sales or licensing of the drone).

Its specifications are:

Maiden Flight: 05/29/05
Length: 7.8m (25.8 ft)
Wingspan: 5.8m (19 ft)
Height: 1.86m (6.1 ft)
Empty Weight: 1,000kg (2,200 lb)
Max Takeoff Weight: 1,450kg (3,196 lb)
Loaded Weight: 1,200kg (2,645 lb)
Type: 1 × Snecma Microturbo TRI60-268 turbofan engine
Thrust: 4.43kN
Max Speed: 648km/h (402 mph/349.8 kt)
Cruise Speed: 482km/h (299.5 mph/260 kt)
Ceiling: 7,260m (23,818 ft)
Endurance: 2 hours
MFR: Alenia Aeronautica
Engine: Snecma Microturbo G311 FCS Athena Technologies
GCS: Alenia Aeronautics
Airbrakes/Actuation Units: Tema SAS

The Sky-08 (AP)

The Reaper however (I mean the CH-4 Rainbow, I mean the XXX) is another story. It boasts:

(From USAF MQ-9 Reaper fact sheet; copied versions may vary)

General characteristics
Primary function: find, fix, and finish targets
Contractor: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
Power plant: Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine
Thrust: 900 shaft horsepower maximum
Wingspan: 66 feet (20.1 meters)
Length: 36 feet (11 meters)
Height: 12.5 feet (3.8 meters)
Weight: 4,900 pounds (2,223 kilograms) empty  
Maximum takeoff weight: 10,500 pounds (4,760 kilograms)  
Fuel capacity: 4,000 pounds (602 gallons)
Payload: 3,750 pounds (1,701 kilograms)
Speed: cruise speed around 230 mph (200 knots)
Range: 1,150 miles (1,000 nautical miles)
Ceiling: Up to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters)
Armament: combination of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions  
Crew (remote): two (pilot and sensor operator)  
Unit cost: $64.2 million (includes four aircraft, sensors, GCSs, and Comm.) (fiscal 2006 dollars)  
Initial operating capability: October 2007 (US) 2014 (China-PRC)

The xenophobic PRC (Peoples’ Republic of China) backs the DPRK (silently, at least…and sometimes not so silently). It is understandable that they do; in their worldview, it is not a good thing to have free democratic countries like Taiwan (the ‘other China’), Japan, and South Korea just offshore of them. Those countries (again, in their worldview) ‘ring in’ their eastern (only) coast, and also ring in their expansionist goals for the South China Sea and East China Sea.

So what is perhaps most surprising is that the DPRK does not have more ‘Chinese’ (e.g., PRC) military-grade drones in their fleet already. Or that they don’t have more civilian ones. Heck, a couple DJI Matrice 600s were reportedly used in a foiled (or staged, no one is sure) assassination attempt on the president of another regional bad actor (Nicolas Madura of Venezuela, deeply in bed with the Iranians and Chinese as well).

Yet the drones the North keeps flying at the South have been (to date) simple old-fashioned copies of drones, the type you’d expect a second-rate, back-water, low-tech country like North Korea to have.

Still, it makes one wonder.; perhaps the drones that get caught are just the crappy ones, flown as a distraction while the ‘real’ modern drones perform their missions. Yet South Korea is not stupid (or technically inept). One must assume that if any volume of modern UAVs were flown over a relatively small country like South Korea, at least a few would have been crashed, captured, shot down, or at least recorded.

Yet none have.

Does this mean that the North hasn’t been flying them? Maybe. Does it mean that they have just been using what they have while they save up pennies to be able to buy a few CH-4s (cheap) from their commie buddies on mainland China? More likely. It sure doesn’t mean that they won’t start to use them more and more, and to realize that a few decent DJI drones modified are even more accessible than the more expensive (but still bargain-priced, compare to the Reaper) Chinese drones. They may not be able to take over South Korea using a fleet of killer DJI drones, but the potential havoc and disruption they could cause is a fundamental basis of asymmetric warfare (fighting against a technologically and economically-superior opponent).

It remains to see what the North Koreans will do with these rumored drones, but one thing is for certain; it’s unlikely they will use them for scientific research, disaster relief, medical services, or to help their starving populace. The most likely scenario is they will ‘get up to no good’ with them. Worst case, they might use them to start another world war.

So I think the best drone advice for North Korea is (to paraphrase the ancient rock band Pink Floyd):

“Hey, North Korea, leave those drones alone…”

Drones with Feathers?

The advent of ‘bio-mimetic’ drones – drones which mimic biological creatures- has changed the drone world. From the advanced ‘Robo-Raven’ of the US Army to the smaller and cheaper (and less capable) bird and bug drones for sale commercially, the face of flying has changed forever.

A quick look for bird drones reveals a number of options: from reasonably-priced to prohibitively expensive. Marketed as ‘bionic birds’ or ‘e-birds’, the prices I saw ranged between $34.99 and $127.06. One ‘e-bird’ even sits on an ‘egg’ to get its batteries charged. None of them will poop on your car.

Bionic Bird Co. advertisement

When I started looking for bionic birds for military applications, the reading got more interesting (and the price tag got higher…if I could find one). The US Army’s Army Research Lab (ARL) seems to be leading the way in drone/bird research, but for now, they aren’t selling at any price. The ‘Robo-Raven’ under development seems quite impressive (and is also reportedly ‘attractive’ to hawks and other raptors).

Army DevCom film, courtesy YouTube

None of this is a surprise to conspiracy-theorist marketer Peter McIndoe, a University of Memphis college student who started the ‘Birds Aren’t Real’ movement. He claims the CIA (mad because birds kept pooping on their cars) started a bird-eradication program, replacing them with bird robots to spy on Americans. Surprisingly (or perhaps not so surprisingly), the movement has gained a fairly wide following on social media. I suppose robot birds flying over a flat Earth seems like the height of logic, to some.

Not to be outdone by ‘regular’ bird drones, scientists at the Swiss Laboratory for Intelligent Systems at the Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne (Federal Polytechnical College of Lausanne) have been working on adaptable wings and virtual ‘feathers’ to improve drone flight and capabilities.

What totalitarian regime wouldn’t want a few bird drones to monitor its people? Not the communist Peoples’ Republic of China, that’s for sure. They combined irony and technical progress to make a ‘dove’ (symbol of peace) drone. The doves were released over Xinjiang province in China (2018) to watch over Uighur ‘dissidents’. Weighing in at 200 grams (about 7 ounces), with a wingspan of 50 cm (20 in), they fly up to 40 kph (25 mph), boast a 5 km (3.1 mi) range, and have a flight ‘endurance’ time of 30 minutes. They are equipped with HD (High Definition) cameras, a GPS receiver, and satellite data-link.

But doves were just too small and…dovey. What the PRC really needed was a seagull – larger, with more gliding and long-flight capabilities due to its size. The relatively lifelike drone premiered at the World Robot Conference in Peking (I mean Beijing) on August 20, 2019. Called Wind Rider, it looks like a seagull – a real innocent seagull- which just happens to be hovering over you and watching your every move.

No specifications are available on the new Wind Rider.

These new drones have come a long way from Nanjing University of Aeronautics’ 2012 release of the ‘Tian Ying’, a drone that looks like an eagle (but offered only basic features).

Yet some think such large and easily-visible flying objects are already things of the past. The real drone technology for many are Micro Aerial vehicles (MAVs). These are the drones which will be used singly, or in swarms (as AI swarm capabilities improve). They don’t look like a DJI Mavic Mini (or any typical ‘quad-copter’ drone). They look like bugs.

Which has given rise to a new term – insectothopter. (Put that in your acronym pipe and smoke it). It all started in the 1970’s, with CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) experiments on micro drones which looked like ‘innocent’ bugs. The propulsion system was a fluidic oscillator, which moved the dragonfly’s wings up and down. Originally considering bees, the CIA opted for the more aeronautically nimble dragonfly (they can turn (yaw) 180 degrees in three wing-beats). Their prototype reportedly had a range of 200 m, and a flight ‘endurance’ of sixty seconds. At one gram, it boasted a 6 cm body and 9 cm wingspan.

Per IEEE Spectrum “A laser beam directed at a bimetallic strip in the insectothopter’s tail guided the device. That same laser beam acted as a data link for the miniature acoustic sensor onboard the craft. A miniature oscillating engine drove the wings; the fuel bladder contained a liquid propellant that when mixed with an oxifier created additional thrust.”

CIA Museum

CIA Museum

Come to find out, the bugs didn’t fly too well in wind, and due to various performance limitations and manufacturing complications, the program was discontinued. Well, today we have access to better radio-electronic technology, computing and AI (Artificial Intelligence) technology, and materials development technology. Micro-miniaturization has become commonplace.

In 2005, the Netherland’s Delft University of Technology made a DelFly drone that looked like a large dragonfly, and in 2008 made the world’s smallest (publicly recorded) ‘camera plane’. The 3.07 gram, 10 cm insectothopter carried an on-board video camera and vTX (Video Transmitter) to provide ‘live’ in flight video feeds.

The 2007 Wow-Wee FlyTech Dragonfly ‘toy’ became the first commercially-produced bug drone. It didn’t have a camera or anything, but still sold like hotcakes, and was considered one of the best inventions of 2007.

So what’s to stop us (I mean, the CIA or DJI) from making legit bug drones? Some say nothing, and the issue is already an accomplished fact. The unverified photo of a mosquito drone (or MAV, to be precise) and the rumors it has capability for not only monitoring, but also DNA-sampling or (more sinister) implantation of RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) micro-chips through a ‘mosquito bite’. Who’d have ever thought unwanted drone bites would become one of our modern-day concerns?

Well, the future is here – and it might just bite you…or monitor you…or implant you. Replacing the beauty and fascination of nature, in the future when we see a bird soaring, we won’t think of beauty, but instead wonder if it’s the CIA or China spying on us. When a mosquito bites us, we won’t worry we’ll get the West Nile Virus – we’ll worry we’ve been implanted with some nefarious nano-technology.

Yes, the future is here…and it comes in the form of bug drones and bird drones.

My question is…when can we buy them? Can we hook FPV (First-Person View) goggles up to them? Will they even need Remote ID and Tracking…or could you even track non-complaint bugs which weren’t equipped with that (voluntary) mass surveillance technology? When will they appear on Amazon? After all, at the turn of the century the type of drones we had today existed only in the imagination (and research labs) of very few scientists.

Yes, the future is upon us…and it is cool…and a little creepy.

Post Script: To some, it makes no sense to re-invent the wheel. Why not just strap a controller and flight package on a real dragonfly and use it? According to IEEE Spectrum, Researchers at Draper, in Cambridge, Mass., and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute at Janelia Farm are genetically modifying real dragonflies so that their nervous systems respond to pulses of light, and then equipping the insects with a backpack of electronics. The cybernetic MAV is called DragonflEye.”

P.P.S: Referenced in this article, and of interest to those wishing to understand developing technologies and associated issues, the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) magazine ‘Spectrum’ is always a good read. The article I referenced is here: https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-history/heroic-failures/meet-the-cias-insectothopter

A Radio-Navigation Primer

Radio navigation is the process of determining one’s position by use of radio signals. Initially, this was only of interest to ships (and later, to airplanes). The radio signals would provide:

  • Angular position to the transmitter (by signal strength and interferometry)
  • Distance to the transmitter (by time required for the radio signal to reach one’s position
  • Speed (by ‘Doppler’ -phase- shift of received signal)

The most basic system (and first) was a Radio Direction Finder (RDF). Using the angular direction of two different radio navigation signals, a location could be determined by simple triangulation; determining one’s position by comparing the direction of two known signal sources.

A variation of this technique is VHF Omni-directional Range (VOR), which uses a radio ‘beacon’ modulated with two sub-carriers; one as a Station ID and the other a directional carrier modulated with a 30Hz reference. By comparing phase of the 30Hz signals, angular direction is obtained (and thus heading, on a compass scale). VOR is used to provide aircraft ILS (Instrument Landing System) capability, to aid in radio-directed landing. VOR landing began in the 1940s, and is still used today.

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) is typically used in conjunction with VOR, and provides a distance reading (in addition to VOR’s angular reading). An aircraft broadcasts a series of pulses, which a ground-based transponder returns (after a delay). Simple time delay measurement results in a fairly accurate distance measurement. VOR/DME systems provide direction (to an airport, for example) via VOR and distance (via DME).

LORAN-C (LOng-Range Aid to Navigation) was used for determining shipboard (and eventually aircraft) location. A series of coastal stations broadcast a low frequency (and thus long-distance) signal, sending pulses modulated with an AM (Amplitude Modulation) sub-carrier. A basic direction and range was obtained by interferometry, and more accurate location by measuring phase differences of the signals. The USCG (United States Coast Guard) managed a network of LORAN-C stations around the world, with other countries adding compatible stations to augment the system. As electronics became cheaper and more compact, most ships began to carry LORAN-C receivers for accurate position information.

About this time, something better came along…

With the advent of the US Navy’s constellation of Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites, truly accurate positioning (almost worldwide) became available. By acquiring the signals of at least four GPS satellites, one could determine position with a high degree of accuracy. The more satellites, the more accurate the position information.

This system was originally reserved for US military only, but eventually became the worldwide standard for navigation, with civilian systems using GPS receivers which demodulated the non-secure component of the GPS signal.

The signal is composed of satellite ephemeris data (showing the satellite position and movement), while another time signal helps derive distance to the satellite. Once a number of satellites are acquired, simple triangulation determines location on the Earth’s surface.

The constellation of GPS satellites (originally 24, currently 32, with 27 active at any given time) ensures this triangulation can occur. The satellites are in a MEO (Medium Earth Orbit) of about 12,500 mile altitude, and rotate around the Earth twice in a sidereal day. This meant that (with the original constellation) at least seven satellites were ‘in view’ of any point on the Earth, at any given time (there could be more). With the new constellation, the minimum satellites in view has increased to 9 (thus increasing accuracy even further).

GPS Constellation (from Wikipedia)

The GPS satellites and constellation (as well as Earth-based receivers) have undergone continual improvements, with GPS III scheduled for implementation soon (with centimeter position accuracy).

One additional benefit of GPS is the propagation of accurate UTC (Universal Coordinated Time). Each satellite has an on-board Cesium Beam Frequency Standard (an ‘atomic clock’). These clocks are synchronized to the Naval Observatory main clock which is in turn synchronized to the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) main clock in Boulder, Colorado. That clock is synchronized to the Royal Naval Observatory clock, for a stable time hierarchy, compensated for ephemeral and sidereal variations

Each cesium clock is based on the decay of the cesium-32 atom, which just happens to be a multiple of sixty (on which our time is based). As accurate time is required for accurate navigation, this means GPS serves two functions: position location services, and accurate, synchronized UTC time distribution. (See my upcoming “Time and Timing Primer” for more information on UTC distribution and synchronization).

In addition to the GPS constellation, the Russian GLONASS (Global Navigation Satellite System) and two others from the EU (European Union) are modeled on the GPS system and architecture, and serve to augment the GPS signals. (Communist China plans to launch its own fleet this year (2020). Modern timing receivers (small micro-chips) typically receive both GPS and GLONASS, for increased accuracy and reliability (in case one system is ‘down’ or obstructed, or if Selective Availability (SA) functionality makes the GPS timing available only to the US military.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty good entry on GPS. For those who want to know more, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

You might wonder why all this matters, and what it has to do with the ‘drone world’. Well, with modern wireless communications (for example, from your remote controller to your UAV), precise timing is critical. With modern gyro-compasses and inertial management systems (IMS) in aircraft, precise location information is required.

To enable a true 5-G (Fifth Generation) wireless network (and the data rates it promises), precise timing is critical. To allow seamless communications between wireless and land-based wire-line networks (as well as virtual networks like the ‘internet’), precise and synchronized timing is fundamental.

To summarize; if you want your drone to be able to find itself in space (or you to find it if it is lost), you need modern radio navigation (e.g., GPS). If you want it to communicate with your remote controller in an error-free fashion, you need GPS timing. If you want to have a hope in heck of implementing (or communicating over) a 5-G wireless network, or enabling mandated Remote ID and Tracking of UAS, then you need GPS.

That’s why it matters.

The FPV Freedom Coalition

The community-based organizations (CBO) the FAA recognizes as representing UAS pilots numbers…one. The RC-airplane based Aircraft Modeling Association (AMA) is currently the sole CBO the FAA recognizes.

Why this matters to UAS pilots is this; if you have a non-compliant UAS (without Remote ID and tracking capability), you will soon be allowed to fly only in FAA-Recognized ID Areas (FRIA), run by approved CBOs (or more accurately, by the one CBO).

In Colorado, there is only one approved airfield*. In Texas, there are 9. In New York, there are 16, and only 31 for all of California. So, according to the FAA NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule-Making), in the entire state of Colorado, there is ONE place to fly non-compliant UAS. That is ridiculous.

*The Rocky Mountain Soaring Association (AMA #1245) in Commerce City, Co (near Denver). Their website calls them a sailplane association…I can hardly see them opening their FRIA to a bunch of drone people, with much faster and more maneuverable aircraft. As it is, they require club and AMA membership to fly even an RC airplane on their field.

Enter the FPV Freedom Coalition. The interest-based group representing race and FPV drone enthusiasts recently acquired 501(c)(3) non-profit status. It also has an application in to become the second CBO approved by the FAA.

Whether approval as a CBO will increase the available approved flying fields (FRIA) in Colorado (or nationwide) remains to be seen. Still, at least they are drone people, which is an improvement over the AMA (in my opinion). They are focused on drone issues, especially ‘sport-drones’ (and not just sailplanes or model aircraft).

I’d prefer a Drone Freedom Coalition, representing all of us, but I guess beggars can’t be choosers. I’d prefer FRIA ‘drone parks’ be allowed for any organization providing flying space for non-compliant drones (as virtually all drones in existence today are likely to soon be). I’d actually prefer being able to fly responsibly anywhere, and make the responsibility for collision avoidance rest on the commercial drones who want to enter the airspace to perform deliveries, etc…and make a ton of money. None of those hopes and wishes and preferences is likely to come true.

Back to the FPVFC. They launched as a 501(c)(3) in April 2019. On 9 December, 2019, they were named part of an advisory board on an FAA-proposed requirement for a mandatory aeronautic knowledge test for recreational UAS pilots**.

Their CEO is David W. Messina, a mechanical engineer and model aircraft pilot since he was ten. He has been flying FPV quad-copters since 2016 and says he loves it. He has served on FAA Drone Advisory Committee (DAC) Tasking Group on Remote ID in June to October 2019.  In October 2019, he joined the FAA DAC UAS Facility Maps task group and also took the lead of the BVLOS (Beyond Visual Line of Sight) – Spectrum/C2 sub-group.

Their web site tells a bit about their agenda and plans. They have a comment period ending soon, and will post their comments on the FAA Remote ID NPRM on 8 February, 2020. As a pilot planning to become an FPV flier, I support them. As a pilot currently only flying commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) camera drones, I still support them, but wonder if they truly represent me.

I am hopeful, but then again, I am an optimistic guy.

The FPVFC (and other UAS-centered organizations like them, if approved) may be our great hope. Then again, I am not that hopeful. I have a feeling this NPRM is going to pass more or less as written, and is designed to support emerging commercial drone giants (while effectively pushing recreational UAS from the skies).

I guess time will tell. I support the FPVFC in my heart, but whether I will pony up the forty buck annual fee for membership remains to be seen (I think I need to save for a Remote ID-capable UAS as a first priority).

I will be watching the FPVFC closely in the times ahead, and will save my pennies and join if they seem to be moving forward and helpful to all drone pilots. Stay tuned…

**Members of the FAA advisory board for Aeronautical Knowledge Test requirements for recreational UAS pilots:

  • Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
  • Drone Launch Academy of Southwestern University
  • SAIC
  • DJI
  • Horizon Hobby
  • UAV Coach
  • King Schools
  • Unmanned Safety Coalition (?!)
  • Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association (AOPA)
  • Aircraft Modeling Association (AMA)
  • Drone Racing League
  • FPV Freedom Coalition

Map of FAA-Recognized ID Areas (‘Drone Parks’)

Indonesia Develops New Attack Drone

On the last day of 2019, Indonesia unveiled a new multi-role, attack-capable, MALE (Medium Altitude Long Endurance) drone. The UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) is called the Elang Hitam (‘Black Eagle’). It was developed by a consortium of Indonesian organizations, including their Air Force, National Institute of Air and Space, and nationally-owned electronics company PTDI.

The virtual copy of the Chinese communist-made CH-4 ‘Rainbow’ UAV (itself a virtual copy of the US’ MQ-9 Reaper) was unveiled on the same day Iran announced its copy of the US’ MQ-1 Predator, dubbed Shahed-129 ‘Eyewitness’.

The CH-4B is the largest of the ‘Rainbow’ series of fixed wing UAVs, with a wingspan of 18 m or 59 ft (the Indonesian ‘Black Eagle’ has a wingspan of 16 m or 52.4 ft). It has six ‘hard-points’ for external weapons, and a payload of 250-345 kg (551-760 lb). Its ceiling (maximum altitude) is 5,000 m (16,400 ft), its range is 5,000km (3106 mi/2699 nmi), and its endurance is 30-40 hrs (depending on payload). Its top speed is 235 kph (146 mph/127 kt). It has been sold to Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

The Black Eagle payload is advertised as 300kg (661 lb). Its endurance is 30 hrs, and its top speed is 235 kph (146 mph/127 kt). There are few other specifications available. While a basic copy of the CH-4 (and thus the MQ-9), Indonesia has worked to develop its own version, but still relies heavily on foreign parts and systems (for example, it uses Australian Rotax motors and a flight-control system built in Spain).

The director of the PTDI (Elfien Goentoro) said the Black Eagle was needed to maintain the sovereignty of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). He said the need for surveillance continues to grow along with the increasing threat to border areas, both the threat of terrorism, smuggling, piracy, and theft of natural resources such as illegal logging and illegal fishing.

“This unmanned aircraft will start flying next year. This is only the first prototype, there will be an advanced prototype,” Elfien said in the PTDI Region, on 30 January, 2019. There will be two versions of the multi-role UAV; a reconnaissance version and an attack version.

The ‘new’ UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) is billed as an ‘ingenious design’ in many reports, but no one elucidates on what is ingenious about the design, provides specifications better than either the CH-4 or the MQ-9, or gives any evidence of notable design improvements or innovations.

Why would Indonesia need such an aircraft (or fleet of aircraft)?

It has been beset by terrorism, not only between Islamic terrorists and Christians/Hindus, but also between Islamic traditionalists and reform groups.

The

The country (largest in South-East Asia) has the world’s largest Muslim population.

They have faced a variety of natural disasters, and the destruction of their formerly massive natural resources. They ostensibly have no direct enemies (as far as countries or neighbors go); their primary conflict seems to lie within. However, they are involved in a number of current disputes with other countries. Per Wikipedia, these disputes are;

The threat of various terrorist groups (internal and external), as well as the considerable and current threat of pirates operating near the major shipping routes through the Straits of Malacca, constitute a clear danger to the country’s peace and stability.

In Indonesia, enemies are numerous and widespread, despite the government’s policy of generally friendly relations and non-alignment. There are a number of things a surveillance UAV could be tasked to look at, and a number of things an attack UAV could be tasked to shoot at.

How this seemingly capable aircraft will be deployed and used remains to be seen. There are a number of sensor applications for scientific uses, but the initial effort seems to be concentrated on surveillance and attack capabilities.

Stay tuned for more information, as the story develops…

Generals- Back in the Line of Fire

Back in the bad old days, generals led men into battle. After all, how could they get men to risk their lives if the leaders weren’t willing to risk their own? So generals led charges, first in line for fame and ‘glory’. Well, that all changed and eventually generals sat in ‘the rear with the gear’, while enlisted men and junior officers made the charges and took the risks. The rationale was that generals were just ‘too important’ to be risked in battle.

This of course led to terrible expenditures of men and machinery, while the generals sat back in relative safety and comfort, overseeing operations and giving remote commands (with virtually no risk to themselves). Eventually that practice became de rigeur, and no modern general has (or would be allowed to) lead troops or directly risk his life in battle.

Well, all that recently changed.

With the Reaper drone killing of a top Iranian general at the start of the year (3 January, 2020), the generals of the world are once again in positions of risk. With the advent of modern war (and especially of stealthy drones and airplanes), such outmoded concepts as ‘front lines’ are no longer valid. The war is where the enemy can make it, and generals are once again ‘in the line of fire.’

FILE- In this Sept. 18, 2016 photo released by an official website of the office of the Iranian supreme leader, Revolutionary Guard Gen. Qassem Soleimani, center, attends a meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Revolutionary Guard commanders in Tehran, Iran. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard faces new sanctions from U.S. President Donald Trump as he has declined to re-certify the nuclear deal between Tehran and world powers. But what is this organization? (Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP, File)

While UAVs have changed the face of warfare, this might be one of the most important ways in which they have changed it. You have to think twice about your actions and allegiances when a Hellfire missile might just catch you in your backyard, or on your way to a staff meeting.

Most likely, it will make generals more removed from their men and public view, more protected and isolated than ever. Either way, the idea of sitting safely in ‘the rear’ is no longer valid. With high-flying ‘stealthy’ drones and long ‘endurance’, the rear is gone. There is no rear. There is no place to hide. Suddenly, generals have become more desirable (and in some cases, more easily reachable) targets than common fighting soldiers are.

Yes, UAVs have changed the face of warfare, both conventional and asymmetrical. The above effect may be one of the most important ways in which it has been changed.

The First Drones

The first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for recreational use were the wind-up helicopters developed in the fourteenth century.

In 1804, Sir George Caley (commonly known as the Father of Aviation) developed a bow-powered helicopter and glider.

In 1848, John Stringfellow developed the first machine-powered UAV, a steam-powered aircraft with a ten-foot wingspan. The prototype was flown in an unused lace factory (but never developed further).

In 1849 the first military use of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) recorded were those used by the Austrian Army . During the siege of Venice, the Austrians secured some bombs to a fleet of unmanned balloons. Using fuses pre-cut to test lengths, they let the balloons drift over Venice. One bomb worked, and the rest were blown back over the Austrians, or out to sea.

In 1871 Alphonse Penaud developed the first rubber-band powered glider, initially as a novelty, and later as a toy.

In 1894, British physicist Oliver Lodge demonstrated the first radio control (RC) of a remote object, a galvanometer.

In 1898 Nicolai Tesla demonstrated the first radio-controlled drone, a UWV (Unmanned Water Vehicle) or radio-controlled boat. This was the first recorded RPV (Remotely-Powered Vehicle).

In 1900 the next recorded unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) was the first glider built by Wilbur and Orville Wright. The two-wing, tailless glider was flown first by Wilbur laying on the lower wing, while a ‘ground crew’ added ballast to keep the glider from flying too far or too fast (all they were trying to do at this point was design a good wing, with lift). After their first ‘manned’ glider flight, the next few were unmanned, with logs and even a local boy used for ballast.

In 1916 Ruston Proctor built the first actual remotely-controlled UAV. It was a radio-controlled ‘Aerial Target’ for anti-aircraft gunnery practice.

In September 1916, the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane had its first test flight. Known as the ‘flying bomb’, it was supposed to be a sort of aerial torpedo, and could perhaps be considered the first ‘cruise missile.’

In 1918 the US Army built an improved drone (now called ‘the Kettering Bug’), modeled after the Hewitt-Sperry Automatic Airplane. It had its first flight (just a bit late for use in World War 1).

A series of aerial targets and torpedoes were developed not long after, but the next step came in the form of aerial reconnaissance.

In 1929, Kalman Tihanyi (a Hungarian scientist) developed a prototype of an aerial camera,and later in the same year a prototype for an IR (Infra-Red) scanner, for use by the British Air Ministry.

Around this time, UAVs began to be called ‘drones’, with some speculating it was in reference to the DeHaviland ‘Queen Bee’ aerial target. In 1936, the term became semi-official when the head of a US Navy research group (on radio-controlled UAVs) referred to them as drones.

In 1936, the R/C (radio-controlled) model aircraft nationals were held in Detroit. Zero planes were entered. The next year, six planes were entered, mostly gas-engine powered, radio controlled airplane models. Three of them flew (albeit only for a short time), and the other three didn’t get off the ground.

In 1942 the first UCAV (Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle) was built by the (US) Naval Air Factory. The UCAV was equipped with an RCA TV camera and an aerial-launched torpedo. It was controlled by radio, mounted in a command plane which received the TV-signal and guided the drone to the target. It successfully delivered torpedoes on a frigate, while guided from twenty miles away by the command plane. Somehow, in the midst of the war and war production, the idea was never taken seriously enough to be implemented further.

Also in 1942, the German Luftwaffe built the first jet-powered cruise missile, the V-1. The basically ‘fire-and-forget’ V-1 was scheduled to be replaced by an improved design V-2, with better jets than the original pulse-jet, and with long-range radio control. Both this superior design UAV and a (manned) jet-powered fighter were disapproved, with the Luftwaffe instead selecting the (manned) Messerschmidt fighter, and staying with the relatively unreliable V-1 UAV (a decision which would have a fatal effect on the German war plans).

After World War 2, the Navy and Army Air Corps both used converted fighters or bombers as sensor drones, testing radiation from nuclear tests.

In 1958 that the US Army acquired the first actual purpose-built, production reconnaissance drone, the Aerojet General SD-2 ‘Overseer’.

In 1958, Lockheed built the first helicopter version of an RC UAV, modeled after the standard helicopter. It was designed for helicopter testing.

In 1964 (check) the first RC model aircraft kit was sold (prior to this, recreational model RC UAVs were amateur-built, from components).

In 1969, John Burkham demonstrated a six-second flight with his two pound, unmanned ‘free-flight’ helicopter model ‘Little Susie’ at the 12th annual RC Symposium.

In 1971 the first ‘toy’ RC helicopter model kits were sold in Germany.

During the Vietnam conflict, the US Air Force used a number of airplane-launched reconnaissance drones (which the North Vietnamese Air Force also used as aerial drones for gunnery practice, shooting down six AQM-34 drones with their (Soviet-provided) MIG-21s.

In 1977, Dr. Paul B. MacCready and his AeroVironment company developed the ultra-light, solar-power HALE UAV, the “Gossamer Condor”, which won the (ironically-named) Kremer Prize for Human Powered Flight

In 1982, the Israeli defense forces used a series of advanced UCAVs along with fighter planes to destroy the (previously superior) Syrian Air Force. This Middle East conflict ushered in the era of modern UAVs, which would be further tested in the region in decades to come.

In 1990, US forces used the RQ-2 Pioneer UAV in Operation Desert Storm (Iraq). At one point, Iraqi troops tried to surrender to an RQ-1 hovering overhead.

In 1995 the USAF RQ-1 Predator (in a reconnaissance capacity only) was used in the Balkans conflict.

In 1998, the first HALE (High Altitude, Long Endurance) UAV flight was recorded, when the Australian company Aerosonde flew the ‘Laima’ over the North Atlantic Ocean. The US Navy worked to purchase modified versions.

In 2002 the first recorded CIA drone killing occurred, in Afghanistan. It was during an attempt on what was thought to be Osama BinLaden, but was actually an innocent scrap-metal collector named Daraz Khan. Further strikes were made in Afghanistan and in the 2003 ‘War’ in Iraq. The RQ-1 (reconnaissance version) Predator was then designated MQ-1 (multi-role capacity).

In 2006, the first commercial drone permits were issued by the FAA, reducing flight restriction previously imposed on recreational flights.

In 2010, French company Parrot released the first recreational RTF (Ready to Fly) drone, the AR Drone, a wifi controlled UAV with a camera mounted on the fuselage.

In the ten years since, recreational, commercial, and military UAV sales and technology have sky-rocketed, spreading worldwide.

The 69th Drone Detachment

The Story behind the 69th Snowboard Detachment (Airborne)

When I was in Iraq, pretty much every flight area had a waiting area (or at least a semi-shelter surrounded by concrete blast barriers). On these walls and barriers were written the logos and names of units passing through…1st Cav, 2/43 Infantry, 1st Marine Division, etc. Well, I wasn’t assigned to a particular unit, so I decided to make my own unit and logo. And so from Baghdad to Balad, Tikrit to Tal-Afar I wrote down 69th Snowboard Detachment (Airborne). I thought it would be funny. I even made a little logo I could draw quickly in Sharpie.

DCIM\100GOPRO\GOPR0702.JPG

When I was in Afghanistan, it was the same thing…with no real unit (except the good ole 69th). So from Kandahar to Kabul, Bagram to Barak, I added the 69th logo. I even had some (desert tan) T-Shirts made when I came home on leave. It was kinda my private joke, and I often smiled at the thought of my logo all over South West Asia. I wondered how long those logos lasted, and if anyone really thought there was actually a detachment of bad-asses out there, doing missions on snowboards. It made me smile, when sometimes a smile was as rare (and precious) as gold or cold water.

So naturally, when I had to make a name for my YouTube channel about drones, 69th snowboard detachment came to mind. I of course modified it to 69th drone detachment, and changed the logo accordingly.

DCIM\100GOPRO\GOPR0703.JPG

So far, I haven’t flown my drone from Denver to Durango, Ward to Walden (Colorado), but I am working on it. And as I fly (just as I traveled ‘over there’), the logo (and name) will grow on me.

It may not be the best ‘drone brand’ (the name may make people think I’m one of those steely-eyed drone killers they see on documentaries), but heck, it’s mine. And I like that.

So that’s my story. I’m not part of some secret USAF or CIA group, typing blogs to amuse his self between Reaper killings. I’m just some guy learning to be a pilot (an ongoing, lifelong process, or so they say). I’m a detachment of one, and air force of one. I’m detached, too…the places I want to fly and film are far away from other people and aircraft (minimizes problems, in my experience). So yeah, 69th Snowboard Detachment, that’s me. Pleased to meetcha.

See ya out there in the skies.

The Mavic Mini: Just a Fairweather Drone?

I live in Colorado, so I do most of my (DJI) Mavic Mini flying either in the mountains, or along the foothills next to the mountains. Thus, I fly in wind a lot…steady wind, gusty wind, intermittent thermal wind. I fly in colder temperatures which would challenge any ESC (Electronic Speed Controller). I have often been flying my MM ‘blind’ (without a phone or DJI Fly app connected to the controller), and thus within close visual range. This allows me to see the immediate effects of winds and weather, and to closely evaluate the Mini’s response to inclement conditions.

…and I am here to tell you, the Mavic Mini is no fair-weather drone. Sure, it’s light and thus more susceptible to being pushed around than the bigger, stronger drones in the DJI fleet. But flown right, with care given to conditions and battery state, the Mini is a remarkably stable drone, despite its size (or lack thereof).

I read a lot in the DJI forums (and see a lot on YouTube) about the reported ‘flyaways’ (drones apparently zooming away, beyond the point of no return, where a pilot’s commands have no effect). I see a lot of flight logs with ESC errors (‘not enough power’), and a lot of conclusions that the Mini is just not strong enough to fly in those bad old winds.

If a pilot stays within the specified wind tolerances, the Mini (at least mine) will present no problems. It can even fly with stability in winds (and gusts) far beyond the stated parameters…if the pilot pays attention to battery charge and conditions, and doesn’t fly with too tight a margin between the drone and potential obstacles.

My general conclusion is that (in instances of reported flyaways) the pilot was most often flying beyond capabilities, unfamiliar with the aircraft and its responses, and ultimately was a victim of (an FAA code for accidents) OBE (Overcome By Events). Under the stress of the moment, the wrong commands were given, and the aircraft was lost (of course, the pilot would not die, but most likely would, if it were a manned aircraft).

Now, I may change my tune someday, and if I fly in the wind on low batteries, that day may come soon.  Yet I am not rich, and if I lose my Mini due to pilot error (flying beyond the aircraft’s capabilities, or in adverse conditions and inclement weather that would preclude flight), then it will not be easily replaced. So I fly carefully, and have made sure I know this drone’s response to bad winds and bad weather before I fly it at extended distances, or over terrain where unexpected winds might carry the thing away. I give myself a safety margin, and know how to evaluate the wind, and know when to just fly another day, rather than risk a flyaway.

I’m learning what my drone can do, and am not asking it to do more. So far I have found no reason to conclude it is somehow too weak to fly in any wind worth mentioning. The fact is, the Mavic Mini is a marvel of aerospace engineering and miniaturization. Its performance exceeds what we could reasonably expect from such a drone. The last thing it is would be a is a ‘fair-weather drone.’

I’m just not buying the claim the Mavic Mini is a lightweight (in performance). It flies as well as we can expect for a drone of its specifications and build (and better, in cases where it is flown with care and skill (and a little bit of luck).

Of course, most pilots don’t believe in luck. Instead, they believe it is all about skill and preparedness…about a good ADM (Aeronautic Decision Making) and nothing else.

Now, I don’t budget ‘luck’ into my margin for error – but I sure am glad if I have some. Sometimes the wind (which would normally carry your Mini over that ridge and beyond recovery) will abate at the last moment. Sometimes, your reaction time and situational awareness are better than others. Is that luck? I don’t know. All I know is I have been flying my Mini somewhat carefully (especially for the first twenty battery charges or so- on three batteries). I can take chances later; when I am more proficient and know my drone’s performance even better. Until then, safe is the word.

I gamble with little things – not with a five hundred dollar drone. I take chances when snowboarding, not with expensive aircraft. Besides, taking chances is pretty much a young man’s game and I hope to be an old pilot who still has his original Mini, rather than a bold pilot who took chances and lost his.

Ultimately, the Mini is (in the broader spectrum of things) a fairweather drone. When compared to HALE (High Altitude Long Endurance) drones, the Mini is a LALE (Low Altitude Low Endurance), and has all the performance limitations you’d expect for a drone on one edge of the performance spectrum.

Within the class of smaller commercial battery-powered drones, the Mini might be considered a (pun not intended) LAME (Low Altitude Medium Endurance) considering the fairly long battery life compared to many other drones in its class, or a MAME (you guessed it Medium Altitude Medium Endurance), since its altitude ceiling is as good as many in its class.

Either way, it performs well enough for what it is. If I want to fly around at much higher speeds, seeing it all in FPV (First Person View), I need to build or buy a race drone, and get some FPV goggles (I can hardly wait). But if I want to cruise around and check it out casually, maybe do some cinematic filming, the Mini is the way to go. It gets steady shots, even in pretty strong winds and weather. All in all, I am pleased with its performance in the wind so far, but ‘pleased’ is subjective, and each person will have their own opinion in the matter.

Just get out there and fly one, and see what you think.

See you out there…

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started